Should a Pro-Abortion Printer be Forced to Print “Abortion is Murder” Signs and Shirts?

The courts have kicked a legal hornet’s nest by redefining marriage and forcing people to agree with their decision under threat of fines and possible imprisonment.

Now states are trying to project business owners that do not agree with the redefinition of marriage by passing laws allowing them to refuse service to people of the same sex who want to get married. Consider Arizona's governor Jan Brewer:

"She must decide if she is going to sign into law legislation that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers."

These new legal attempts to fix what the courts broke are getting a lot of attention. They are being portrayed as pro-discrimination laws. Some have described them as similar in kind to 'Jim Crow' laws. Being black is not a behavior or a belief.

Business owners (religious or not) should be able to make their own decisions about who they want to do business with.

Sometimes the best way to explain to people the nature of something is to put the shoe on the other foot. Here are some “what ifs.” Babies are Murdered Here

  • What if a print-shop owner holds to a "pro-choice" view on abortion and a pro-life group comes in and wants shirts and signs made that read “Babies are Murdered Here” to use in front of an abortion clinic? Should the owner of the shop be forced to make the shirts and signs?
  • What if a print-shop owner who is homosexual gets an order for shirts and signs that are to read “God Hates Fags”? Should the owner be forced to fill the order under penalty of law?
  • Should a supporter of PETA who owns a print shop be forced to make signs and shirts that read “PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals”?
  • Should a baker be forced to supply cakes to a KKK-themed wedding or birthday party?
  • Should an atheist who owns a print shop be forced to print signs and shirts that read "All Atheists are Going to Hell"?
  • Should a printer be forced to print shirts and signs that read "Hitler Was Right"?
  • Should a photographer be forced to film and photograph a wedding that has a “White Power” or KKK theme?

I suspect that the vast majority of people in America would sympathize with these business owners who were asked to do something contrary to their beliefs that is an advocacy position against those beliefs.

This is quite different from a rabid racist who buys a cake from a baker or wants business cards made for his son’s new business venture. In the majority of cases, people who operate businesses don’t know the personal views or sexual habits of their customers, and in most cases they don’t want to know.

But when someone comes in to advocate for a view that has moral meaning for them, that’s a different story.

We may not like the advocacy of this group or that group, but what we should like even less is the government saying how we should advocate for our beliefs.

The above examples would not be prohibited by law. Same-sex sex has special protection under the law. Laws have been written that say a business cannot refuse to support the behavior of people who engage in same-sex relationships and marriage.

This is tyranny of the highest order. The First Amendment was drafted to protect speech, popular or not. My view of unpopular speech and someone else’s view of unpopular speech are equally protected. The government may want to stop the propagation of popular speech since to them it’s a threat to the establishment.

Academia likes to protect its eggs by keeping out dissent. Global Warming advocates have declared that the “debate is over.” Dissent is not only not tolerated; it’s not even allowed to speak.



  • patriotusa2

    I have always admired the intestinal fortitude this governor has had in the face of so much turmoil and opposition. Nevertheless it speaks volumes that she is now hesitant about signing this bill. The many scenarios mentioned in this article are a perfect example of how confusing and difficult the results of political correctness, and the revision of the definition of discrimination are - making it almost impossible for this country to function.

    • Renellin

      If it's badly written as someone here has asserted, maybe she did the right thing. We shall see if she suggests a re-write.

  • fliteking

    Brewer is great, I wish she'd throw her hat into the ring in 2016 . . . if we indeed have elections then.

    Mr. DeMar - - - Great article . . . yet again.

  • Jake

    Too many people running this country are liberals. America gets crazier every day.

    • FreedomFray

      The problem is that we let some group of politicians "run our country" in the first place. America had better wake up soon to the fact that no bureaucracy or government will ever put the people's interests ahead of theirs.

      The immense problems our country faces are not "left vs right" issues for the most part. They are more issues of "freedom vs tyranny" and "constitutional vs unconstitutional".

      Neither side of the issues will truly fight for freedom or constitutionality without being held accountable by the citizenry. It's really against human nature when you think about it. People will simple try to advance their own status, power and wealth if given the opportunity - left or right.

      The answer to our problems lies not with the politicians but with "We the People".

  • patriotusa2

    The verdict is in! She vetoed the bill.

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      Can we say "She has no balls"?

      • patriotusa2

        Just read a new article on Newsmax, and now it seems she voted in favor of the gays. Looks like she lost her cojones somewhere near the border.

      • patriotusa2

        The New York Times wrote that she voted in favor of business and the rights of their religious belief, which is what I originally thought. I'm glad I doubled checked.

    • Renellin

      Did she say why?

      • lilolady

        Arizona was threatened loss of Google Jobs, Loss of Sport team, Apple also joined in job loss threat. A rock and a hard place decision.

  • Bill_S

    Veto is right choice. The bill is badly (poorly) written. It needs to be very explicit about protection of rights on BOTH sides. What you do in your bedroom is your problem. I should not have to support it, pay for it, or hear about it. I don't share my bedroom with you. Remember the old signs "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Bring them back. For everyone. Remember---tolerance is not the same as acceptance.

    • Renellin

      That is correct, and if you are the photographer, post a sign that says, I reserve the right to pick and choose my business, as each session is a reflection of me and my art. Whether I agree with your lifestyle or not or your cause or not, I will choose.

  • MSGran

    Hey, if they can make a baker bake a cake for a gay marriage, then they should make the printer print the signs. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, as they say!

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      Someone should test it. I'm sure there a plenty of heterophope sodomite cake decorators and florists around.

  • MannyMoeJack

    That's a very well written article. Liberal extremists would have a hard time defending the moral analogies that were presented.

    In fact for the liberal trolls who may habituate this forum I think they are likely crawling back into their respective holes in a vain attempt to come up with a logical counter-argument.

    • Thessalonianguy

      Liberal trolls and logical counter-argument. A bit of an oxymoron, no?

  • MikeO48

    Yes, if a baker has to bake a wedding cake for a queer wedding.

    • tionico

      but would the queer baker ever get FORCED to bake the cake for a REAL wedding, with scripture verses, pro-godly marriage sayings, and so on? I'm waiting for that one to happen.... design the cake to be in-your-face PRO marriage according to God's design, then raise a ruckus when he refuses on the basis he disagrees with the "sexual orientation" of the customer couple. Same shoe does NOT fit so well on the other foot.

      • Renellin

        How about an athiest JP performing a religious wedding?

        • lilolady

          There is NO question that muslim Cabbies can Refuse to carry those with alcohol in their hands or on their breath AND refuse to carry any dog, even a person with service dog, blind or not! On Religious grounds,yet. Why am I not surprised at the double standard? Why am I surprised that no
          Christian Group is DEMANDING the same consideration for their religious rights?

  • NASA

    Quick. Everyone run to Costco printing and test the theory.

    • Weress1057

      мʏ ɴ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ιɢнвօʀ'ѕ мօтн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀ мαĸ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ѕ $67 ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʋ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀʏ нօυʀ օɴ тн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ ιɴт­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀɴ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­т. ѕн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ нαѕ в­­­­­­℮­­­­­­­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ɴ օυт օғ α ʝօв ғօʀ т­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ɴ мօɴтнѕ вυт ʟαѕт мօɴтн н­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀ ιɴƈօм­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ աαѕ $12272 ʝυѕт աօʀĸιɴɢ օɴ тн­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ ιɴт­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ʀɴ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­т ғօʀ α ғ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ա нօυʀѕ. α ғαɴтαѕтιƈ ʀ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­αɖ SaveJury&#46com

      • NASA

        Yes, but YOUR mother is a whore.

        • fliteking

          That's not fair, conservative males took away this whore's opportunity at Micky D's to make a fair living wage and her state does not participate heavily in income redistribution.

          She is motivated too, she voted 7 times in the 2012 race and earned enough ObamaBucks® to get an iPhone.

        • NASA

          HO HO .


        • Thessalonianguy

          OBAMAFONE! 😀

        • Renellin

          Plus her mail-in absentee ballots! Dang those conservative males! They should all be sent to my house.

    • Thessalonianguy

      Nice pic, bro - I just noticed. :)

      • NASA

        It's my support statement for Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame.

        Now that he has been reinstated, I need an excuse to cut all this crap off. Probably after the Laughlin bike show the end of pic is coming.

  • sfcpete

    Great article Mr DeMar but we must realize there is no academia in the Republic today thanks to the liberal infestation of in the guise of "teachers"

  • Thessalonianguy


  • david

    I can guarantee that if a liberal and/or a gay business owner were put it a place that violates their conscience, assuming that they even have one, they would not be able to show you the door fast enough for them and would not end up in legal hot water for it

    • Renellin

      I would ensure the writing of the law is not such that if you are a diner, you cannot refuse service to a couple flamers. However, if they attempt to use your service or product in a way you find offensive and you state it as such, such as gay, or even extreme environmentalism--or the 'nots' thereto, your artistic expression must not be forced upon you. The examples of a caterer or banquet hall or photographer are the ones the gays chose to set as examples, and to my mind they are excellent. Why would anyone ask a photographer who virulently disagreed with their 'cause' to cover their event? Only a political activist who is trying to cause harm to the photographer.

      • lilolady

        Just wait until the photos/cake/etc are delivered! Then comes the lawsuit for having a momentous occasion spoiled by a vindictive photographer/baker/caterer/etc.
        Can anyone guarantee good performance from people whose services are hired? Forgot to put sugar in the cake? Film in the camera? Crab in the crab cakes?
        Simple lapse in memory? Task given to new employee?
        I don't think one could sue for an act of God or for the
        person who was working with a migraine headache.

        • Renellin

          Actually, these people would love it, and I would expect them to be rude to the caterers/deliverers/etc. You know, what if you were a cake maker and a Christian, and someone came in and asked you to make a cake for NAMBLA? What if they wanted the figure on top to be a man and a boy with the man's hand down the boy's pants? How about if they wanted demons to cover the cake in such a way that there would be a demon to eat with every piece of cake?
          I don't see why you cannot have a sign that says my artistry is limited by my vision and imagination. If I can't picture it, or don't think I can do your event justice, I will let you know as early as possible in the process.

        • lilolady

          LOL!!! *o*/ !

  • Patricia J. McDaniel


    ▊▊▊ ▊▊▊ ▊▊▊▊� ▊▊▊ ▊▊䷈▊ ▊▊▊ ▊▊▊That's a very well written article. Liberal extremists would have a hard time defending the moral analogies that were presented.

    • DWinch

      Go rent your boobs someplace else, perhaps a dairy!

    • NASA

      Little known fact that Patricia's roommate mom is actually her mom. Yes, it's true.

      What was suppose to be a platonic love affair between two roommates, turned into a web of lies, kinky sex, suicide and murder when Patricia, an orphan adopted by her roommates mom, was secretly passed off as the first born in a marriage that took place just before her roommate was born out of wedlock.

      After it became known to Patricia's roommate, that Patricia was in fact her step-sister, she became enraged at her parents. She then began to devise a plan to frame Patrica for the murder of their parents, and again redeem her place as the eldest child.

      Stay tuned next week for: "Blood in the bathroom sink."

    • Karen Peters

      I keep seeing these postings that claim "my roommates mother", "my bestfriends brother" or "my 2nd cousins grandfather" are making hundreds of $$$
      by spending just a few short hours on the internet. What I don't get is if this is such a fabulous opportunity, why aren't you doing it as well instead of just telling us all over and over how much someone else is making?

  • jayleigh

    In the America the Patriots of 1776 envisioned, personal rights trumped government's right to legislate! Their greatest fear was a huge, centralized government. George Washington refused to remain the ever-incumbent POTUS for fear it would set a precedent of a popular POTUS remaining in office so long that he became a virtual monarch/dictator. A strong centralized Federal government bode ill for the people, those patriots believed. Now, 200+ years later, we have the very thing those founders feared, and it has led to laws that restrict the freedoms the patriots died to ensure! It has led to an AG who believes he doesn't have to enforce laws with which he disagrees, and it has led to viewpoint discrimination (only of certain viewpoints, of course) without consideration for the opposing views. This won't change unless the people stop voting for the same slobs who gave us this wonky view of society in the first place. Term limits for Congress, axing the "agencies" and refusing to cater to PC is a long, hard road back to our roots, but it is the only way back. Either shop owners such as bakers, T-shirt/sign/poster/business card creators/etc., are allowed to refuse business that is in direct opposition to their core beliefs, or NO VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION IS ALLOWED! But, we really know that no gay baker will ever be forced to bake a wedding cake for a hetero-couple that has scripture on it denouncing homosexuality, nor are any of the other businesses going to fear losing their right to do business if they refuse to print slogans, bake cakes, or any of the other things that violate their freely held beliefs - it is only the Christian message/values that is being "punished" - and that punishment most certainly does violate the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. Are we too far down the Marxist-Socialist road to get back to our roots?

  • UpLateAgain

    I really don't see why the objection has to be religious, though if it is, that adds even more impetus. Discrimination should only be charged if someone is being deprived of a right. If I run a business, you don't have a right to the fruits of my labor. I can choose to sell them to you, but you don't have a right to them. There's nothing forcing you into my shop.... and while open to the public, it's NOT public property. I should be able to refuse service to anyone of my choosing, and not have to give a reason.

    Buying a house is different from visiting my store. I don't own the neighborhood, and should not be able to keep someone out. But I do own my business... and I'm getting a little sick and tired of the government telling me how I have to run my life, and have to make the fruits of my labor and the sanctity of my property available to whomever without my having a say in the matter. It seems to me that any objections to doing business with someone that I might have (however obnoxious they might be), are my First Amendment right to express.

    For the record, I would have no objection whatsoever to doing business with a gay couple (though I might a known child molester, for example) but the choice should be mine.

    • lilolady

      If Oprah can come into your business and you discriminate against her because you think rightly or not that she cannot afford your pork chops (hand bags) or you choose not to accept her business, period, we have all seen what a spoiled brat some people choose to be. I always liked the sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." (Remember? When ownership meant something?)
      "Our loss, your chance to discover your "Happy Place." Exciting, no?

  • antiliberalcryptonite

    Absolutely! If Christian bakers have to make cakes for homosexual weddings, then YES, liberal abortion-loving printers do have to print whatever any customer wants. What's good to be forced on the Christian and Conservative is good for the liberal gander!

  • justinwachin

    Thank you for this post. It makes a great point for our liberal friends who were so eager to misinform the public and have the Arizona bill vetoed.

    The reality is that most of us have deeply held beliefs on some issue. Being asked to do something to support the other side of the issue would be unthinkable. Most of us would consider the racist spew of KKK to be something which we would never support. We should not have to sacrifice our business and the investment that has been made in it as a price of conscience. The KKK, for instance, may have a right to exist but I should not be forced to use my God-given talent to shoot a video of their events. In fact, them having a video shot should not be problem. By the same token, I should not be forced to shoot video of a gay wedding if I believe that it is detestable in God's eyes.

    Gov. Brewer said the law wasn't needed because existing federal and state laws already provided that freedom to refuse service. Assuming she's right, how many gays have been unable to find a caterer for their gay wedding? I can't help but believe that there are people in just about any town who would be willing to cater a gay event if they are able to agree on an amount and date. This bill wasn't about mistreating gay lovers; it was about protecting the religious liberty rights of us all.

  • Chris W

    What's the big deal? If a business doesn't want to serve you, then they don't have to.
    Hello? IT'S THEIR BUSINESS! If you don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple folks. It's called common sense.

    • Preacher Cruz

      You're absolutely right but unfortunately when Americans accepted the FORCED integration and non discrimination by whites during the civil rights era they opened this can of worms. NO one thinks discrimination is ok so they think well anti-discrimination laws must be morally correct. EVERY person should have the right to free association and you don't or shouldn't lose that right just because you own a business. If this stands how long will it be until all ordained ministers are forced to perform gay "marriages" after all, it wouldn't be right for me to be able to discriminate...

      • Angelgirl54

        I sincerely don't believe that what you call "forced" integration has anything to do with this. One cannot change the color of their skin and we are all homo sapiens. Our Creator created us all. There is no color with God. NO ONE opened a can a worms in equal treatment for all humans. If you are a preacher, I can't believe you said this or believe that it was a bad move to treat everyone as equals. You sir, offended me with that remark. As Galatians 3:28
        There is neither Jew
        nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
        female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

        Homosexuality is a behavior. One should not force someone to do something contrary to their beliefs.

        • Preacher Cruz

          Lt me try again... Nothing I said offended you. What offended you is what you perceived me to have or "thought" I had said.

          You said "One should not force someone to do something contrary to their beliefs." That is EXACTLY what I'm taking about. I agree with you 100% that being gay and being black is not an equal status. I am a person of so called "mixed" race with Irish/Cherokee on my mothers side and African/Puerto Rican on my Fathers.

          I KNOW we are all one race as my lesson Race In America and the Bible will prove if you will listen to it or read it...

          The point I was making is that once we as Americans accepted the UN-Constitutional and therefore ILLEGAL premise that people could be forced to do business with others we laid the foundation for this. Gay and Black are not equal but most people pushing the "anti-discrimination" angle think they are or at least like to pretend they are.

          Government interventions are NEVER the answer and tend to mean we end up with less freedom.

          If I had been one of the people being refused service at a local restaurant I would NEVER have wanted to give my money to some Racist former klan member who was only serving me because the government made him do it.... The way to handle this was with local political and financial pressures. As attitudes changed eventually more and more Christian white people would've refused to do business with groups and shops who discriminated against their black neighbors....

          I hope this clears up what I really meant and was saying. God bless.

        • Angelgirl54

          Yes it does and I thank you. I perceived that you thought because of the civil rights era, that it was "FORCED" and unnecessary and that we opened up a can of worms doing that. It may have been forced by the government but that is one thing that was right to do.

          I have a special spot in my heart for Native Americans and what was done to them. (I dated a couple in my lifetime).

          The paragraph that set my head spinning was this....You're absolutely right but unfortunately when Americans accepted the
          FORCED integration and non discrimination by whites during the civil
          rights era they opened this can of worms.

          It was very easy to misinterpret if you really look at it and think about it.
          God bless.

        • Preacher Cruz

          I guess I can see where it might be open to some doubt but the key thing to focus on was forced integration and/or non discrimination. Most people of good conscience believe no one should be discriminated against. HOWEVER, if we are Christians or Constitutional Conservatives or even Libertarians; we should take great offense at the idea of forcing so called non discrimination...

          Today these same attempts are being used to try to force Christians to affirm behavior they consider sin. I also have a fondness for the American Indian culture and history. My first Job in Detroit was at SEMII (South Eastern Michigan Indians Inc.).